Bombs? Really?

[phylodog]

I'm being told through LE sources that there was not a plan to use explosives to take him out. There was a breaching charge which was to be placed via the robot. As the robot moved into position the suspect opened up with heavy rifle fire and the decision was made to detonate the charge before he created any additional casualties.

Not guaranteeing the authenticity of the information at this point but given who it came from I'll believe it until proven otherwise.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I'm being told through LE sources that there was not a plan to use explosives to take him out. There was a breaching charge which was to be placed via the robot. As the robot moved into position the suspect opened up with heavy rifle fire and the decision was made to detonate the charge before he created any additional casualties.

Not guaranteeing the authenticity of the information at this point but given who it came from I'll believe it until proven otherwise.

I could see this. I too heard a similar story this AM, though in my version the charge was to disable a nearby explosive. I assumed that the disabling charge actually triggered his IED instead of disabling it, taking him out accidentally.

Either way it wasnt a case of "hey, lets blow the MFer up!" and it saved the lives of valuable officers.

And as to the allusion upthread about a robots' "do no harm" rule, I dont think it applies as its not autonomous. If so, drone strikes would also fall under this problematic category and I havent heard anyone *****ing about that specific angle on those too. Same diff, just has tracks instead of wings.

 

[Cerberus]

I've got to join the "no bombs for the police" side. If **** is that bad, get the National Guard to come out. That's their real job, not going to fight in ****ing Iraq for the Feds.

Actually it's not exactly legal to use the military, any military branch, to be utilized for civil law enforcement. And the NG's job (and the pre 1917 version of such) is to go to war, and prior to Korea did so, and was usually the vast majority of the Army.

 

[cobber]

Just so I'm clear, if you risk human lives sending in the SWAT team, killing the guy is ok. Doing so with a remote control robot and killing the guy is not ok. So, we're not arguing any sort of due process issue. We're arguing that it's not...sporting? That a shape charge is too icky but a bullet is ok because...why, exactly? This is the same argument that bans hollowpoints in New Jersey. Killing a dude is ok, but we don't want to kill him with something that's extra scary.

Rather like the arguments in WWI that tanks weren't sporting, but cavalry charges against machine guns were positively bracing. Perhaps the police should have sent in the mounted contingent and lanced/sabered the shooter to death?

I am in the no need to blow perps up camp. They said that he acted alone but we will never know now that we blew his ass up. How do we know that there were not people who got a way to say St. Louis or Georgia?

Maybe if the police get to his apartment before MSNBC?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Rather like the arguments in WWI that tanks weren't sporting, but cavalry charges against machine guns were positively bracing. Perhaps the police should have sent in the mounted contingent and lanced/sabered the shooter to death?

Actually, that could have worked too. Surprise/crazy is sometimes a great equalizer. The "OMG WTF IS THAT?!?!?" effect can sometimes give you the edge as their OODA loop is CRUSHED, burned, and blown away in the breeze.

WARNING NSFW language

[video=youtube;WaZUn7ps_W4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaZUn7ps_W4[/video]

(OK, back to the serious discussion)

 

[miguel]

Actually, that could have worked too. Surprise/crazy is sometimes a great equalizer. The "OMG WTF IS THAT?!?!?" effect can sometimes give you the edge as their OODA loop is CRUSHED, burned, and blown away in the breeze.

WARNING NSFW language

[video=youtube;WaZUn7ps_W4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaZUn7ps_W4[/video]


(OK, back to the serious discussion)

God damn, that is funny!

I'm not sure what part was best, the woman laughing her ass off around 1:15 or the dude wiping him out at 2:25!

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

I'm sorry but this is simply stupid.

As stupid as it sounded frank is not stupid. At one point he tried to post informed opinions from the perspective of an experienced Officer. Over the years his participation has waned and degenerated into cynical and biting (even if very clever) one-liners. He seems to (perhaps to an extent, rightly so) have me labeled as a malcontent and therefore has to dismiss and counter as a knee-jerk reaction. Thus the unproductive ****ing boo hoo comment and his inaccurate presumption that I am ok with shooting cops with rifles. While he made his opinion very clear his demeanor also makes it very clear where his head is at. Frankly, (see what I did there) his flippant cynical attitude is exactly why I am a bit uncomfortable with bombing perpetrators as an accepted tactic.

I don't know if it is stupid so much as Frank being sad, mad and frustrated.

This here. I don't know what has caused it though. If It is solely because of the ungrateful and constant critique (such as mine) he sees on INGO then I have to believe his skin has become too thin to interact with the public without appearing as coarse as he looks in here.

I'm being told through LE sources that there was not a plan to use explosives to take him out. There was a breaching charge which was to be placed via the robot. As the robot moved into position the suspect opened up with heavy rifle fire and the decision was made to detonate the charge before he created any additional casualties.

Not guaranteeing the authenticity of the information at this point but given who it came from I'll believe it until proven otherwise.

If this is true, then I am feeling better about it. The thing is this is not how the Chief presented it in his press conference announcing the death of the perp.

 

[actaeon277]

I think there may be a difference between National Guard federally activated, and non activated.

National Guard, acting as agents of the State Governor have been used hundreds of times in the US as police.
Weren't they sent to Ferguson?


Other than that, not making a statement on the bombs. Too much going on in this thread already.

 

[DRob]

"Bombs" seems to imply an anti-personnel intent. I think some people who blow a gasket every time the media refers to an AR15 as an assault weapon is cherry picking their news!

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

"Bombs" seems to imply an anti-personnel intent. I think some people who blow a gasket every time the media refers to an AR15 as an assault weapon is cherry picking their news!

Yes..... Exactly. The Chief presented it in that very light, that they rigged a bomb and drove in there and blew him up. While effective as I said in the beginning this makes me uneasy that explosives are being used in an antipersonnel capacity.

 

[Dead Duck]

Yes..... Exactly. The Chief presented it in that very light, that they rigged a bomb and drove in there and blew him up. While effective as I said in the beginning this makes me uneasy that explosives are being used in an antipersonnel capacity.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I think the robot also died while deploying the device.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yes..... Exactly. The Chief presented it in that very light, that they rigged a bomb and drove in there and blew him up. While effective as I said in the beginning this makes me uneasy that explosives are being used in an antipersonnel capacity.

The anti-gunner argument. It's about tools, not about actions. Don't complain when people blame the rifle for the Dallas murders.

 

[Woobie]

I think there may be a difference between National Guard federally activated, and non activated.

National Guard, acting as agents of the State Governor have been used hundreds of times in the US as police.
Weren't they sent to Ferguson?


Other than that, not making a statement on the bombs. Too much going on in this thread already.

There is a difference between state and federal orders. But, as I understand it, it's not like we are deputized or anything. We could probably detain someone under certain circumstances, but not arrest them. That would still be done by an LEO. MP's might have broader authority. Been a while since I had that class.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

The anti-gunner argument. It's about tools, not about actions. Don't complain when people blame the rifle for the Dallas murders.

No........ Not blaming the tools. blaming the use of illegal explosive devices, weapons of mass destruction. Booby traps. As I pointed out upstream Police don't get extra rights. Legalize me a hand grenade and the right to use it as self defense and I will change my mind.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

There is a difference between state and federal orders. But, as I understand it, it's not like we are deputized or anything. We could probably detain someone under certain circumstances, but not arrest them. That would still be done by an LEO. MP's might have broader authority. Been a while since I had that class.

When I went down to Border Patrol in the late 90s as active duty military we weren't allowed to detain anyone without an actual BP officer present and ordering us to do so. I don't know the legal ins and outs at all, but I assumed it fell under some sort of "assist an officer" statute as we were acting under their direct request. If the BP guy went to the bathroom and 50 illegals ran across, all I could do was call it in.

 

[BigMoose]

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I think the robot also died while deploying the device.

Maybe not. There are some rumors that is was simply a claymore like device on the front of the robot. Rather then a true bomb.

it makes more sense. As the cops can simply aim the bot and then pop the claymore. The bot might suffer being shot back from the recoil, but does have a good chance of survival.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

No........ Not blaming the tools. blaming the use of illegal explosive devices, weapons of mass destruction. Booby traps. As I pointed out upstream Police don't get extra rights. Legalize me a hand grenade and the right to use it as self defense and I will change my mind.

Weren't any illegal explosive devices, WMDs, or booby traps. You can get explosives. Get into a profession that has access to them and get the required licenses. You do know not just every cop has access to explosives just because they are a cop, right? Say I want to train bomb dogs. I get the proper paperwork and I'm allowed a few feet of det cord and tiny amounts of other explosives. Just like if you want to fly a plane, cut up dead people, or talk on a real powerful radio. Of the options, I've only used explosives and I'll tell you....it's a blast. So go start you a mining company and you get the same "extra rights". Legally, deadly force is deadly force, so no reason to get into that one.

 

[Spear Dane]

Legally, deadly force is deadly force, so no reason to get into that one.

And yet when the death penalty is applied these days we no longer hang or gas people, almost nobody uses a firing squad and the chair is on the way out as well, leaving lethal injection. So obviously both the State and society care HOW deadly force is applied.

 

[Route 45]

And yet when the death penalty is applied these days we no longer hang or gas people, almost nobody uses a firing squad and the chair is on the way out as well, leaving lethal injection. So obviously both the State and society care HOW deadly force is applied.

There may be a slight difference in the application of an adjudicated death sentence and the immediate use of deadly force in a situation that requires it.

 

[Libertarian01]

There are some issues on this that I find deeply disturbing.

First and foremost is the kneejerk reactions by many people on both sides that do not have all of the facts. For us to have a more productive discussion/debate we should wait for all the evidence and facts to be available. That will probably take a fair amount of time.

Another issue that seems to be avoided is that all terrorists are criminals, be default. So where does the transition from criminal begin for the person to become a terrorist? I don't know, honest, non presumptive question here. I think most folks would start by saying that a terrorist is a really, really dangerous criminal. But that is analogous to to assault weapons being really, really dangerous firearms, so I have a little problem with this.

We don't think of Bonnie and Clyde, or Al Capone, as terrorists. Yet Bonnie & Clyde's gang killed at least 12 people, several being law enforcement. We'll probably never know about Al Capone but I think it is fair to say more than Bonnie & Clyde, indirectly anyway.

I think personally I'd rather just label people honest citizens or criminals, it avoids this slippery slope.

For it is the slippery slope that also concerns me. In this case, today, I really don't know if I like the idea of intentionally using a bomb to take someone out. My kneejerk response is NO, but I cannot in fairness judge this particular situation in its entirety.

With that in mind it isn't just this case that bothers me, but the possible paradigm shift that may come from it in our collect acceptance. Today, it is generally bad joojoo to blow people up, but if this is acceptable then how long before C4 becomes a normal response? And IF it becomes a normal response will the really bad criminals start planning for it and escalate? Then what is next? I would rather have seen the criminal taken out, if that is what was needed, by a police sniper with a Barrett .50. At least that way the sniper would have been well aware of the target and the potential collateral damage.

I also tend to lean against bombing as I lean toward Radley Balco's points for criticizing the gradual militarization of what should be peace officers, at least for the vast majority of LE. This is just my opinion. I do see a need for a SWAT team to deal with the really, really dangerous criminals.

(Note: Radley's article on Dallas PD before the bombing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-those-things-could-now-be-more-difficult/ )

All that is my longwinded way of saying that while I do generally kneejerk against blowing criminals up, I will try to absorb as much information as possible before making a final judgement. I may flipflop and change my mind.

Regards,

Doug